As evidenced by the
list above, Monte Hellman’s career as a film director has been a spotty
affair, at best. On the face of it his record of seven features completed
in fifteen years seems fairly typical for an industry where the planning
and shooting of a picture takes about two years on the average. However,
on closer examination one finds that just over half (or five) of Hellman’s
pictures were very short (less than two week) schedule, low budget (under
$100,000) productions. This kind of picture does not take two years to
plan and execute.

Why hasn't Monte
Hellman directed more pictures? One rather conjectural answer is that
he has had trouble finding script material that he wants to work with,
and—at the same time—which his potential producers have
been willing to bankroll him to direct. When he has had some control over
his script material—and consequently ended up with a screenplay
he was reasonably satisfied with—the results have always been
interesting (FLIGHT TO FURY, TWO LANE BLACKTOP) or even extraordinary
(THE SHOOTING, RIDE IN THE WHIRLWIND).

Indeed, in the latter
two pictures, Hellman has succeeded in transcending his material, and
bringing to two adventure stories mythic as well as existential elements
rarely, if ever, seen in U.S. film. The characters here are in
search of mysterious, unconquerable forces (perhaps their very souls)
which are always just beyond their reach. Yet they are driven on to the
very edge of life itself in their search.

In search. Perhaps
more than any other two words, these sum up the theme of Monte Hellman’s
work. The search for what mysterious forces motivate men to greed (FLIGHT
TO FURY), to compete (TWO LANE BLACKTOP, COCKFIGHTER), to understand the
nature of life and death (RIDE IN THE WHIRLWIND, THE SHOOTING).
One can only wish Hellman the best of luck in searching for script material
that he feels close to, and which his potential producers think will make
money at the box office. This, in truth, has been a difficult task for
Monte Hellman to date.

P: Could you describe how your current film, COCKFIGHTER, came to be made?

H: Roger (Corman) gave me the script to read, and I liked it immediately,
and I said that I would like to do it. In January, I began working on
the script, I hired a writer to do: some dialogue polish. Early in march,
I went to New York, because the picture was to be as fully as possible
cast out of flew York, largely for economic reasons. Then I spent three
weeks in Georgia, before we started to shoot, and we spent four weeks
shooting, and we spent an extremely short time editing—it was
very fast. The editor (Lewis Teague) and I worked on it in separate cutting
rooms so that he cut half the picture and I cut half the picture.

P: Was that an economy move?

H: No, it was a time move: we had a release date that made it impossible
for me to work on the first cut on the entire picture. Normally I cut
my own pictures and do everything from beginning to end. In this picture
there wasn't enough time for me to do that.

P: Did you know that going into the picture?

H: I knew that in front, yes.

P: Was there a significant disadvantage to working that way?

P: Not a bit, because as it turns out, he’s an excellent editor. We hadn't
worked together before, but we saw eye to eye on most things and he made
suggestions about the scenes that I had cut. We really worked as a team.
Essentially what he cut were the most difficult scenes, the cockfighting
scenes. His major experience had been in the documentary field, so I felt
that he was better qualified to do those scenes than I was.

H: How did you get Nestor Almendros as your director of photography on
COCKFIGHTER?

P: I guess he had worked for Roger before, and he was an acquaintance
of mine. He’s a beautiful person, and he’s terrific to work with: he’s
fast, and he couldn't be better.

P: Was the whole crew American?

H: The rest of the crew was American, unfortunately.... It would have
been much better if he had brought over his own assistant and his own
gaffer because they were people he had worked with before and who understood
his way of working. We were slowed down by the problem that the people
working with him weren't familiar with his methods, and also by the fact
that they were really the most inexperienced crew that we could have had.
They were fresh out of film school, and some of them were just incompetent,
particularly the camera crew. I wasn't happy with the crew except for
Nestor; he was terrific.

P: Do you think it affected the way the picture looks?

H: Oh, yeah. For one thing, we lost a lot of scenes because of bad focus
and things like that, so you have to make editorial decisions based on
the material that you have. It also affected us because we had less time
to shoot because of the inefficiency of the crew. On a four week schedule
you have to be pretty damn efficient, and if you're loosing two hours
a day because of fuckups, that’s a lot of time to loose.

P: What was Almendros
feeling about the situation?

H: He’s such a good
hearted person that he just accepted it. He’s really the most easy going,
forgiving person I've ever met in my life. He just said, “Well, too
bad.”

P: Is that the way you reacted to this situation?

H: No, no, I was furious. I tried to fire half the crew but I would have
had to pay their salaries if I did. They would have had to have been paid
for the full four weeks (because of their contracts); I would have had
to have paid the extra transportation to bring somebody else out. It would
have taken my whole salary to replace the crew.

P: Did Corman hire the crew?

H: Yes. Which is also unusual for me. Usually I have control over the
crew, which I hire myself. On every other picture that I've made I've
hand selected the crew.

P: Did you have much hesitancy in accepting this whole arrangement?

H: No, because I wanted to make the film. I had a hard time finding a
film I wanted to make—I like the material. I just accepted the
limitations as part of the deal. I knew it wouldn't be a perfect experience.

P: You would think that after all these years Corman would know how to
put together a good crew.

H: It’s not a question of good, it’s a question of ... cheap. He knows
how to make a picture for the budget that he wants to spend.

P: What was the budget for COCKFIGHTER?

H: The budget was in the neighborhood of $400,000, but I think it cost
considerably less because he was so good at cutting all these corners.

P: Shouldn't one be able to hire a competent crew on that kind of budget?

H: Right, sure, but he was just so used to making pictures for $150,000,
that he hired the crews the same way that he did when he would do that
kind of picture.

P: Do you know if Almendros got paid anything like his regular salary?

P: I think so. He got paid more than we would have had to pay a cameraman
here. That was one exception; Roger just wanted him and was willing to
pay for him.

H: Does Corman share any of your feelings about the ineptness of the crew?

P: No, he doesn't.
I don't know if he’s ever worked with a good crew; it doesn't bother him.
(laughter) It’s all relative anyway. I wasn't really happy with the camera
operator on TWO LANE BLACKTOP but I found a way to work with him so that
I wasn't affected by problems that he presented. What it does, it affects
the style of the film in a subtle way.

P: What was your relationship with Corman in terms of the editing of the
fine cut of COCKFIGHTER?

H: After I finished
editing the picture he has made changes in the picture without my knowledge.
He brought in another editor and made further modifications of the film.
During the actual editing, in many cases he was just trying to pick up
the pace. In some cases he wanted the cockfighting to be cut together
in such a way as to make it more brutal and more bloody. At one point
had some second unit footage of blood shot and inserted into the film.
Then he discovered that audiences were repulsed by this and he took some
of that out.

P: Did you run previews?

H: We had one preview.

P: And that was when he discovered that audiences were repulsed by the
blood?

P: Right.

H: What did they do? Were you there?

P: Yeah, I was there. They went, “Oooh....” In actuality, there
is very little blood in cockfighting, and they (Corman) inserted blood
that was really unrealistic.

P: So it sounds as if you're saying that Corman’s pressure on you during
editing had some bad effects, as well as some good ones.

H: Normally I enjoy
that kind of conflict with a producer because it forces you to satisfy
him and yourself at the same time. I liked being forced to find a way
to say the same thing only more economically, with a faster pace. We had
a problem that was built into the script where the story didn't really
get started until about forty minutes into it—what little story
there is. Consequently, everything that happened before that point seems
slow.

There was a lot of
good material. At the same time it didn't really hold the audience as
well as things that happen after the major questions are raised. We knew
that we had a problem there. We knew all that material had to be cut down
as much as possible. He found ways to cut it down even more. He kept saying, “Maybe you can trim this, maybe you can trim that;” and in that
area he’s very good. I found it stimulating to work with him along those
lines.

P: Do you have any specific things which you like to make clear to a cameraman
when you begin a shoot?

H: It depends on the cameraman. I tend toward a kind of realistic documentary
style in costuming, choice of actors, and in camera. So if I'm working
with a cameraman whose natural bent is away from that I will try to influence
him to lean to what I want. With a cameraman like Nestor (Almendros) whose
natural bent is almost further along those lines than my natural bent,
it’s really a question of telling him how far I want to go toward meeting
him. Let’s for the sake of argument say that naturalistic photography
(or naturalistic directing) is the left, and theatrical style is the right.
Well, I would say that Nestor is even more left than I am, so I just had
to be sure that the final result wasn't going to be too left wing. (laughter)

P: How was (Gregory)
Sandor in that regard? (Sandor was cameraman on THE SHOOTING and RIDE
IN THE WHIRLWIND.)

H: He’s further right than I am, so I have to bring him over to the left
a little bit.

P: How do you do that?

H: Just by talk.

P: You find that
consideration is also involved in working with actors?

H: Yes, though... because in a sense actors are less flexible than cameramen
or directors. An actor really only has himself, and if you choose a certain
actor you have to accept what he has to give you. Hopefully you'll select
an actor whose style fits the role he’s playing. I don't mean whose personality
or whose type fits the role. I mean whose style of acting fits the role.
Some actors are more theatrical and some actors are more documentary in
style.

P: How would you define a documentary style of acting?

H: If you're totally unaware that the person is an actor. Some roles can
be played by actors who are obviously actors, and you enjoy them for the
fact that they are obviously actors; and the character himself then becomes
a theatrical person, just as many people in life are theatrical and other
people are less so. I think the character of GTO in TWO LANE BLACKTOP
is a theatrical character, and it wouldn't have been proper for Warren
(Oates) to have played him non-theatrically, let’s say. Whereas the driver
and the mechanic and the girl, had they been theatrical, would have struck
a false note. The one character (GTO) in the film is bigger than life,
so it’s the role in the film that could not have been played by an inexperienced
actor.

P: Or could not have been played in a non-theatrical or documentary style.

H: That’s right.

P: How do THE SHOOTING and RIDE IN THE WHIRLWIND fit into this scheme
of things?

H: In THE SHOOTING
all the characters are bigger than life. The whole thing is painted with
primary colors on a grand scale. It’s not really a documentary style film
at all; it’s bordering very closely on satire. The character that Jack
Nicholson plays is really a takeoff on the character that Jack Palance
plays in SHANE.

In COCKFIGHTER the
style is very documentary and the whole picture could have been cast with
non-professionals. As it turns out, Warren is able to act in either style
and he fit in with many of the real people in the film. But a real cockfighter
could have played the part too, though not as well. Essentially FLIGHT
TO FURY and THE SHOOTING are films about other films rather than films
about life.

P: What films of yours are films about life?

H: COCKFIGHTER, RIDE IN THE WHIRLWIND; I think TWO LANE BLACKTOP is neither.
It’s a film about inner life rather than outer life. But it’s not a film
about other films; it’s not a pastiche.

P: How did you work on the script of COCKFIGHTER?

H: COCKFIGHTER was a script that was presented to me. It was already completed,
and I was allowed to hire another writer to do a small amount of rewriting
and then I did a lot of editing on the script. I didn't really have the
advantage of working with a writer from the beginning of it.

P: How much time did you have to work on the script?

H: About six weeks.

P: Were you happy with the final script?

H: Not completely. I would have preferred having had a more complete rewrite.
It was really a matter of basic structure which just didn't exist, and
there wasn't really much that we could do to alter that at the time that
I came into it. It would have taken as thorough a rewrite as we did on
TWO LANE BLACKTOP. On TWO LANE I literally threw out the first script,
hired another writer, and started all over again. If we'd done that with
COCKFIGHTER we probably could have found a way to give it those qualities
(of being larger than life). I didn't have the freedom to do that (on
COCKFIGHTER). I was fortunate with TWO LANE.... in that the studio (Universal)
accepted by desire to do it completely over.

P: What exactly was
the problem with completely rewriting COCKFIGHTER?

H: The producers
just weren't interested. As it was they weren't very interested in my
doing a dialogue polish on it. I don't think a film can ever be the same
kind of experience for me when it begins with a script that’s given to
me as opposed to its beginning with a blank piece of paper. They're two
different ways to make a film, and I'm much happier starting with a blank
piece of paper than I am with a script that I'm not really free to tamper
with that much.

Essentially, the
experience of filmmaking for me is one of constant discovery. If I know
too much in advance I just tend to become disinterested sooner. The ideal
situation for me is working on a film like THE SHOOTING or even TWO LANE
BLACKTOP where there are so many unconscious things happening in the creation
of it that even after finishing the editing and mixing, and the making
of the final print, I can go to see the film and still find new things
in it. That to me is a stimulating experience.

I like to work on
a film like that where it’s continually opening up its secrets to me.
I think that any work of art, not just a film, is a mystery. I think it
was Cocteau who said that it should reveal its secrets slowly.